Resource Library

Dear Nilim
Recruitment agents in sending countries are able to do various manipulations in the process of recruitment for foreign employment only until the support is received from receiving end as well. For example, under the EPS in South Korea, no sending parties could do anything harmful for the migrant worker since all such attempts are banned by the system. Further, besides the presence of various regulations, aren't there money-minded people who do various unlawful and inhuman activities in the world? If it is the situation, what should the governments and interested INGOs do? My proposal to ILO is; to introduce some sort of mechanism (i.e. automated systems) through which the sending countries can hire foreigners and sending countries can post the profiles of prospective migrant workers, and to motivate all governments of labour receiving countries to hire foreign workers only through such systems. - Bandara Ekanayake

POST FROM TOEA (Thailand Overseas Employment Administration Office)
1 .In Thailand, there is a law concerning migrant workers called “The
Employment and Job Seeker Protection Act B.E.1985. “ The Act provides
provisions controlling both the establishment and supervision of
private recruitment agencies, the sending of workers, protection and
assistance of Thai workers. According to article no 39 - 40, in case
workers have some problems in their workplace such as getting unfair
wage, benefits and welfare or even haven’t job there, the private
recruitment agencies are responsible to take the workers back to
Thailand.
2. At present, the data base of returnees in Thailand is incomplete to
provide sufficient returnees data. However, TOEA (Thailand Overseas
Employment Administration), the government agency, has planned to
develop returnees’ data base. It will keep record all of returnees and
use the returnees’ data for the government to make advantage policies
to returns.
3. To support the l Thai workers to be employed both in Thailand and
upcountry after return Thailand, The Roya Thai Government, in
cooperation with Japan and Republic of Korea, has implemented 2
projects for Thai workers from Japan and the Republic of Korea;
-First Project for Thai trainees sent to train in Japan by IM (Public
Foundation for International Manpower Development of Medium and Small
Enterprise, Japan). After the trainees finished training in Japan, DOE
(Department of Employment) will provide job placement for them and
follow up.
-Second Project for migrant workers sent to work in Korea by EPS
(Employment Permit System for Foreign Workers) is called “Happy Return
Project”. The workers can return from Republic of Korea after ending
of employment contract with assistance from the Government of Republic
of Korea in terms of vocational training and job placement services
including support to return to work in the Republic of Korea for
another term.
Thank you so much,
Best regard,
Phatcharintr
TOEA
Mit-Maitri Rd.
Dindaeng
Bangkok
10400 Tel 02 245 6707

Dear all
I would argue that much of the public
sentiments towards migrant workers (here, I refer to workers that have
officially entered the Singaporean labour force on the work permit) are first
and foremost based upon class, which take on a racialized and gendered
dimension. It is first class-based rather than any other social category that
undergirds people’s attitudes towards migrant workers precisely because they
have been (non) incorporated into Singapore as workers. The Singaporean public tends to view migrants with fear, distaste
and suspicion.
This is primarily fear of migrants stealing
jobs. This is sometimes difficult
to justify as most migrants take on jobs that locals reject. While it is true
that some migrants are performing work in industries, such as service sector
jobs, that locals would do as well, it must be noted that it is not that
businesses are pro-migrant. Rather, it is pro-business – it is about who is
vulnerable to accepting lower wages and poorer working conditions. It is
perhaps understandable that Singaporeans are anxious about their livelihoods as
well because of this so-called “increased competition” (I use the quotation
marks because I do not think the playing field is level for everyone. Migrant
workers give up a lot more to come to Singapore for a work permit job, whether
it is their social support network or hefty agents’ fees) in the service
sector. Yet, it bears reinforcing that it is the labour laws which are pushing
down wages and work conditions, rather than migrants themselves.
By fear, I also refer to the popular
discourse that migrants, both male and female are dangerous and “on the prowl”.
While I do not have statistics, I would also note that crimes are being
commited by locals as well. Much of the law, however, serves to criminalized –
that is, make criminals out of – migrant workers such as making it illegal for
them to work while on Special Pass or making it illegal for them to change
jobs, leaving many of them to rely upon the employers stipulated on their work
permits. The public’s attitudes towards migrant workers also tie in with their
gendered and sexualized bodies. Male migrants are often seen as “loitering”
(indeed, at the Little India MRT station, there is a sign in Bengali and Tamil
– languages of two of the dominant male migrants in Singapore – which prohibits
the act of loitering. It is also, I should note, the only place in Singapore
where I have seen a public sign in Bengali.) and therefore up to no good or as
harbouring predatorial intentions towards Singaporean women.
As part of this discourse of keeping
migrants away from locals, there have been self-contained dormitories set up. Dormitories
such as Simpang Lodge in the northern part of Singapore and SCAL located in the
far western part include amenities such as provisions and barber shops as well
as recreational facilities like basketball courts, canteens, television rooms
and gymnasiums ( http://www.scal.com.sg/index.cfm?GPID=105 ).
Another premise housing workers is the recently
converted old school compound in Serangoon Gardens, an upper-middle class
neighbourhood. This conversion was hotly debated mainly amongst neighbourhood
residents, grassroot leaders and the Member of Parliament for the area. While
there is no space here to discuss the NIMBY sentiments, it must be highlighted
that dormitory operators have been instructed to install surveillance cameras
and implement rules on noise levels. The facility will also have adequate
amenities, including provision shops, so workers will have “little reason to
leave it”. Finally, the site area will be reduced, setting it further back from
homes along certain roads and creating a “buffer zone” between residents of the
Gardens and the foreign workers (Straits Times, 4th
Oct 2008, http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_285769.html ).
These measures serve to contain and regulate workers by creating an enclave
that is quite different from its surroundings. Aside from eliminating the
chances of interaction with people who are not in the same work as they are,
the installation of CCTV cameras and increased police patrols around the
dormitories also extends controls over the workforce of the presumed
heterosexual, single, foreign male workers on a day to day basis. As the
marketing director of Simpang Lodge says,
I want to make the
police presence felt to keep the residents on their toes … In other dorms, they
can't cook, so they'll go out and explore... They may not approach girls, but
girls may approach them… We have two guards, one going around, one just outside
checking people. No girls can go in…Sex (work) in workers' dormitory happens
infrequently, but this could be because of the workers' physical needs. This
must be properly managed within the law instead of allowing them to prowl in
our neighbourhood residences. The dormitories' security system (CCTV, entry
passes), guards, patrolling, strict discipline enforcement and working with
neighbourhood police to deter such cases would help to prevent such things from
happening…
-
(The New Paper, Jan 2009, http://www.asiaone.com/News/The%2BNew%2BPaper/Story/A1Story20090127-117384.html ).
This above quote
illustrates that while there continues to be a stigmatization of female sex
workers, it is the closely regulated masculinity of the foreign worker whose
sexuality must be kept in check, “to be deter(ed)” especially since he could
easily fall prey to feminine lures, even if he does not proactively solicit for
sex. His intrinsic “physical needs” as a foreign, heterosexual male appear
normalized yet under the gloss of this rhetoric, these qualities pathologize
him as a subject for close surveillance. Containing workers within the
company’s dormitory allows for policing and remote supervision through the CCTV
to prevent “unlawful” acts – linking workers to problems is a way in which
efforts to decrease problems in production hinges upon the problems associated
with single, male workers. These housing regulations therefore recreate the
low-status male foreign worker as a person that needs to be disciplined,
controlled and kept subordinate, reaffirming unequal relations of power and
hierarchy embedded within the intersections of an individual’s gender,
sexuality and class.
There is also the fear of female domestic
workers seducing the men and/or boys in the household or on the streets. It is
possible to argue that these fears are validated and reproduced by the state
which made it mandatory for domestic workes who become pregnant to be
repatriated to their sending country. It is this fear, that, again, takes on a
classed, gendered and sexualized dimension that employers often use to justify
their not giving their domestic workers day off.
/Junjia Ye

Hi,
Glad to have those latest comments in.
I'd just like to respond on a couple of things.
Jackie Pollock's remarks raise the general issue of to what extent do public attitudes shape government policy and media coverage compared to how much public attitudes are themselves influenced by government and media. I think it works both ways. Government policies tend to send messages about how welcome or unwelcome migrant workers are and there seems to be good reason to think that sectors of the public in each country do absorb these messages, though others may react against them. Their attitudes can be particularly important at times of public debate. There's a big difference between countries of origin and countries of destination of course, not just in their different roles in the global economy, but in the very basic fact that migrant workers in their countries of origin and in some cases (like that of the Philippines) when abroad usually have the chance to vote for their governments, but in countries of destination, only citizens have the right to vote and it is what they say that counts most for governments. In the face of strong tides of hostility among the public towards migrant workers, the tendency is often to take measures to pacify those who are hostile towards migrants, rather than to stand up to them.
I've found media attitudes varied. In Singapore, there have been excellent features and articles based on thorough research by correspondents who took the trouble to ask questions, listen to answers and think hard. There are also articles that tend to go along with popular prejudices or encourage them: reports on domestic workers and boyfriends adopt a lofty moral tone of disapproval while supplying titillating snippets. It is rare to see anything thoughtful on this subject. There's a common assumption among sectors of the public that migrant workers are over-sexed (if male), 'loose' (if female) and that they have strong criminal tendencies. When police statistics a couple of years ago revealed that migrant workers were the Singapore community least likely to commit crimes (compared to locals and Permanent Residents), many were surprised.
Ellene Sana wrote about 'confusing perceptions' of Filipino domestic workers. Sometimes the same perceived characteristics can be seen in opposite ways: They're good workers because they are smarter and better educated than others, but they are troublesome because they are more sneaky and more ready to stand their ground on things like having a regular day off. I wonder if there are other examples of whole peoples being labelled a certain way on the basis of the migrant workers who go abroad? I'm not aware of it happening in the case of Indonesia, for example.
We're just a few days away from the end of this brief dialogue and it is making me think of more questions. I'm wondering about how well public attitudes towards migrant workers have been assessed, country to country? Do worries about possible negative results ever discourage research about the extent of certain attitudes and beliefs? How much do we understand the complexities of public attitudes - when, for example, people who tend to have negative views towards migrant workers show deep sympathy with workers who are mistreated or underpaid by their employers, or others whose views are generally supportive but who embrace negative stereotypes? Jackie Pollock raised the issue of policies that exclude migrant workers and urged that integration was a better way to go, but what does that take and are there good examples of countries that have taken that course successfully?
John

Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
POST FROM BATIS CENTER FOR WOMEN, Inc. — PHILIPPINES
Realities of return and reintegration
The foregoing was
contributed by Andrea Luisa Anolin, Executive Director of the Batis Center for
Women, Inc., a non-profit organization in the Philippines that provides
assistance and services to returned distressed migrant workers for about 22
years now. Batis has been a partner of
the ILO in the implementation of return and reintegration projects.
We would like to
share our thoughts on return and reintegration from our experience as direct
service providers extending assistance to returned distressed Filipino women
migrant workers and their families for over two decades.
Overseas employment
disrupts the rhythm of migrants’ lives with their families and communities.
Adjusting to this disruption entails preparation on the part of the migrants
and their families, prior to the eventual departure, the prolonged separation,
and expected return (whether temporary or permanent), as well as reintegration.
With adequate preparation, goal setting, realistic expectations and adjustment
on the part of the migrants and their families in all stages of the circular
migration cycle, with minimum standards of work overseas assured, and with an
enabling environment in the country of origin (from the national to the local
levels) to absorb and provide social and economic reintegration options for
returned OFWs, the odds of successful return and reintegration are heightened.
We have worked with
women migrants whose experiences have been further disrupted by abuse,
exploitation and the violation of their rights, natural and/or man-made
disasters, wars, conflicts and policy environments not favorable to foreign
workers in countries of destination. We
have observed that facilitating humane return — extending assistance to help
rebuild lives, and working toward sustainable and successful reintegration — is
oftentimes an arduous journey.
Reintegration challenges. While significant
strides have been made to create the enabling environment for overseas Filpino
workers (OFWs) to successfully reintegrate back to their families and their
communities in terms of evolving government policies and programs on return and
reintegration, as well as developing institutional infrastructures and
capacities to translate these into concrete programs and services on the
ground, much more action needs to be done to bridge the gap between existing
programs and services and the target beneficiaries of these services.
While thousands may
have been reached and may have benefited from government and civil society
initiatives to facilitate humane return and/or successful reintegration, the
numbers may not be enough yet to constitute a critical mass of beneficiaries
that will transform the economic benefits of migration into a qualitative
experience of social and economic development impacting beyond individual OFWs
and their families. Awareness among target beneficiaries of available services
for returned OFWs and their families, and the requirements and processes
involved needs to be clearly and extensively communicated to target
beneficiaries until the information is absorbed and internalized as to affect
attitudes and behavior on return and reintegration.
Limited assistance. For the past several years, Batis — as
part of the ILO-EU Project on facilitating humane return and successful
reintegration — has been pro-actively seeking out victims of trafficking and
exploitative migration on the ground, in partnership with the Provincial Governments
of Nueva Ecija and Ilocos Sur. This is being done because many distressed
migrants who return fall within the cracks of available programs and services
or are being provided limited assistance that may have made their return to
their families and communities possible, but not necessarily sustainable reintegration.
Bringing direct
services closer to the ground, where the migrants are in partnership with
duty-bearers from the local governments and line agencies — from immediate
assistance, to continuing care and support toward social and economic
reintegration — helps create local social and economic support mechanisms to
help distressed migrants transition from a difficult experience overseas to a
more hopeful life back with their families and communities. It also helps build
the capacities and raise the awareness of service providers on the ground.
Batis tries to
mobilize and build linkages with local government officials and personnel,
representatives of line agencies, relevant support organizations on the local
level, and even successful returned migrants as part of our efforts to
establish lifelines of support for returned women migrant workers. Oftentimes,
the services, albeit limited and not oriented toward returned migrants, are in
place.
The “dis-connect”. However, the connection to make
these services known and available and relevant to returned migrant workers who
need it is not yet in place. How to make these services more relevant in
addressing the needs of the returned migrants is challenging, and needs a lot
of work. Further, they need to be
accessed by returned migrants with regularity to make the connection happen,
and operationalize. They need to be part of a working system whose framework
recognizes the need to address the impact of migration on individual OFWs,
their families, and communities in order to minimize the social costs of migration,
and to ultimately translate its economic benefits to sustainable development.
From our experience,
working directly with returned distressed women migrant workers as they work to
overcome their negative migration experiences and take the leap toward
accessing these services to sustain their reintegration initiatives, we sense
their frustration, their impatience as they negotiate and navigate the
bureaucracy that stands between them and these services. We also see how
duty-bearers work to facilitate women's access to these services, only to be
met by obstacles that need time and patience.
Way forward. Service providers like Batis Center for
Women and other NGOs that work at the local levels serve as facilitators to
help bridge the gap, and are actually serve as so-called lifelines to returned
distressed women migrant workers. They also give feedback to duty-bearers to
enhance the delivery of these services, until such time that they become second
nature.
We need to continue
to build on, expand and scale up existing initiatives on humane return and
sustainable reintegration to match the rate of deployment of OFWs. We need to
involve more people at all levels of governance and with various forms of
partnerships to create the enabling environment for the social and economic
reintegration initiatives of individual OFWs or even OFW groups to succeed,
whether through their own agency, or assisted/ facilitated by government and
civil society programs.

Normal
0
21
false
false
false
EN-US
ZH-TW
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Normale Tabelle";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
Dear John, dear magnet members,
here just a quick response from Taiwan.
In Taiwan the attitude towards migrant
workers is rather hostile. Already the foreign labor policies seem to assume
that migrant workers will become a “social problem” if not regulated properly and their human rights are often overlooked.
Immigration of migrant workers is not
wanted and integration very limited. MW need to stay in dorms the employer has
to provide. For reporting an undocumented MW you can receive a reward of NTD
5000 (ca US$ 150). Especially tabloid newspapers and TV channels tend to
reflect a negative image of MW. There were stories about a Vietnamese caregiver
who slapped her patient or of a Filipina, leaving the patient in his wheelchair
in front of restaurant while she goes in to have lunch. Of course a behavior
like that is not correct. However, these stories do not further discuss the
circumstances of a MW in Taiwan. On the other hand stories about exploitation
and/or abuse of MW are quite rare.
The opinion that MW take away jobs of local
workers is widely shared, also under college graduates. Lately, after the
Taiwan Government decided to raise the minimum wage, the Federation of
Industries representative argued that this would only benefit MW and that local
workers might experience lesser wages because the employer needs to pay a higher
minimum wage to the MW.
In the last two years the Govt took up some
initiative to improve the integration of “new immigrants”, mainly women from
PRC, Indonesia and Vietnam married to Taiwanese men. On its peak around 20% of
the yearly marriages involved a foreign partner. These women faced and still
face discrimination, also do their children. The Govt started to stress their
positive influence for Taiwan’s society and there are numerous reports in the
newspapers.
I totally agree with Ellene: MW have to
promote their image by themselves and it is helpful to have local advocates who
might be able to influence the opinions - be it media’s, the public or the
governmental. While the “new immigrants” are quite well organized the MW are
not. Only since May 2011 they are allowed to form their own unions.
Thanks for the interesting discussions,
Regina, Hope Workers' Center

This Guide provides guidance to national legislators in drafting legal frameworks in line with ILO Convention No. 181 and Recommendation No. 188. It is rich in many examples of country legislation from both developed and developing countries. Twenty countries have ratified the Convention and ILO has received a number of requests to assist national governments develop legal frameworks to regulate PEA. The Guide is rich in many examples of country legislation and has collated specific provisions from both developed and developing countries. It is a useful resource for national legislators and social partners to identify possible gaps in their legislation and to find appropriate solutions. The Guide provides an overview of regulatory and institutional requirements, so that countries can be free to adapt aspects of the legislation applicable to their own national situations.